Be a professional--just like the physicians, nurses, physical therapists, etc., who do all that you do and much more, often with bare hands on bare skin--because it is an important professional function that is involved in the health and welfare of the people you are paid and sworn to serve.

Be a professional--just like the physicians, nurses, physical therapists,

When you go to the doctor etc, you, as the patient, know what it entails and voluntarily allow the indignities. Ever had a PAP exam???

However, when you're just trying to board a plane and get from place to place, you are NOT volunteering to allow some high school drop out to grop you and put his hands in your pants and squeeze your breast.

Not the same thing at all.

I do feel a bit bad for the TSA people, I wouldn't have that job. Find something else to do.

being blown up is a major inconvenience to the people who have to clean you up off the landscape.

Except there's little evidence those scanners would've detected the explosives that the Shoe Bomber or Underwear Bomber carried onto planes. Further, the terrorists are already showing signs of moving to placing explosives into their body cavities like they did in an attack in Saudi Arabia last year. Neither the scanners or the groping will detect internal explosives. So, faced with that reality, are you willing to submit to cavity searches or much more powerful x-rays before boarding a flight?

Lucid: You could also live in a country that knew that every single person flying did not pose a security threat. That knew that a five year old from Kentucky with blond hair did not pose the same threat as a recently arrived twenty five year old from Yemen. That knew that box cutters did not blow up planes that radical Muslims blew up planes.

1. This is about the TSA problem and the attitude of the agents toward people, that is: their antagonism toward overweight people. It's not my antagonism. If anything, I'm implying antagonism toward the TSA agents.

2. If your problem is with my tag "fat," that's a kind of political correctness that itself carries an implication of negativity toward overweight people. Have you never heard of the "fat acceptance" movement? People who support fat acceptance say "fat acceptance."

3. Issues relating to fat people are important to the culture, to health, and to the economy. I've been covering them for years and intend to keep doing so. Your attitude suggests weight is a dirty secret that must be kept in the closet. I don't understand why you take that position.

"If someone wants to blow up an airplane only chance events will stop them ..."

Muslim terrorists aren't interested in blowing up airplanes.Muslim terrorists are interested in killing large numbers of people with as little effort as possible, as cheaply as possible, and with as much damage as possible.

Up to now, the best way to do that was by hijacking an airplane.

But now thanks to Barack Obama and his merry band of fucking idiots, it's no longer even necessary to hijack an airplane to kill a lot of people.

All you have to do is show up to the security line at the airport where there are literally thousands of people waiting in lines to be molested (none of whom has been searched for explosives prior to entering that line).

The Israelis don't frisk an old man until his urine bag leaks. The Israelis don't force a woman to remove her prosthetic breast device, The Israelis don't look for suspicious things, they for for suspicious people.

You know what... I've got a job application in with them. I wasn't sure I ought to admit that, not just because people are talking about it, but for security reasons. I know I'm not supposed to describe any of the tests or anything. It's a hugely long process that I started last summer.

This whole thing upsets me. I knew that people complain a lot about TSOs but I figure that I could be a bright spot and do a good job. The pay isn't fabulous, but it's way better than what I'm making now. Plus, I know I can get the security clearance necessary. Possibly more importantly I understand the way security requires meticulous observation of procedures and no short cuts. Just because (for example) I'm certain that no one took the classified-circuit-board-smashing hammer out of the desk drawer, it doesn't mean that I would ever ever check-off the shift change form without physically viewing it. That sort of thing. Rules are easy to follow.

I thought a lot about it. I wouldn't have ever applied if I didn't feel I could do the job they wanted done and do it very well. I would never have applied if I hadn't reconciled the job requirements with my beliefs about liberty and the role of government.

This new thing... I don't know what I'll do now. What if they call me? What will I do? I've always thought of this from the TSOs point of view as well as the passenger's.

I suppose right now I'm just hoping that someone gets a clue and the problem goes away before it becomes something I have to make a decision about.

What I want to know is, what if we never had the full body scanners and somebody tripped the metal detector alarm, and then again tripped the hand scanner? And what if it were a guy? Gasp! He'd have to do a pat-down (excuse me, he'd have to molest the guy and fondle his balls). Or would he, when faced with a guy who set the alarms off let him go about his way and board an airplane? I

How about when cops have to pat someone down when they have them against the wall and want to make sure they have no weapons, or rather, when they are moleseting the people and feeling them up. I can imagine the cop who has the perp against the wall and then letting him go,rather than having to touch him on his thighs. Or I can imagine he doesn't do a really thorough pat down because he doesn't want to touch the guys junk.

Rick wrote:We had the shoe bomber and now everyone takes off their shoes. We had the underwear bomber and we are either x-rayed or groped.

I know there are some think these terrorists are stupid, but don't you think they are already scheming up ways around these idiotic searches.

YEt its unlikely that after the shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane with a bomb in his shoes that someone would try again the same way because they know we are checking peoples shoes. whereas, if we still never checked shoes, they would assume that if you want to bring a bomb on board put it in your shoes. It got past security last time and they stil dindn't fix it.They do adapt, but the are also deterred as well.

"YEt its unlikely that after the shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane with a bomb in his shoes that someone would try again the same way because they know we are checking peoples shoes. whereas, if we still never checked shoes, they would assume that if you want to bring a bomb on board put it in your shoes. It got past security last time and they stil dindn't fix it.They do adapt, but the are also deterred as well."

You are missing my point, you don't need to check 80 year old grandmas shoes or 4 year old's sneakers. You PROFILE people. Check them head to toe, while questioning them.

"YEt its unlikely that after the shoe bomber tried to blow up a plane with a bomb in his shoes that someone would try again the same way because they know we are checking peoples shoes. whereas, if we still never checked shoes, they would assume that if you want to bring a bomb on board put it in your shoes. It got past security last time and they stil dindn't fix it.They do adapt, but the are also deterred as well."

You are missing my point, you don't need to check 80 year old grandmas shoes or 4 year old's sneakers. You PROFILE people. Check them head to toe, while questioning them.

RIck wrote:"The Israelis don't frisk an old man until his urine bag leaks. The Israelis don't force a woman to remove her prosthetic breast device, The Israelis don't look for suspicious things, they for for suspicious people."

Rick wrote:You are missing my point, you don't need to check 80 year old grandmas shoes or 4 year old's sneakers. You PROFILE people. Check them head to toe, while questioning them.

This is hopeless.

And if you are female professors who are americans they make them show you their tits, and then berate you for causing flight delays. So I guess they do need to do that. And she doesn't look that Palestinian to me. Looks kind of American.

First, TSA should be defunded, disbanded. Airports or airlines should contract with private companies to handle security. It wouldn't take long before we realized that this airport had good security and that airport has lax security. How would we know? If we can all see that the TSA security is lousy, we would certainly be able to notice good security efforts. Good security means looking at all passengers--middle eastern or not--and drawing some conclusions about each. We need to be prepared for crazy Americans as well as for determined terrorists.

Don't do it, Synova. If all the TSA clowns are required to do is follow the rules, that isn't good enough. It won't ask anything of your intelligence, your judgment, your ability to discern between shoes that need a second look and those that do not.

There was an SS corporal named Richard Bloch stationed at Auschwitz who refused to participate in the gassing of people.

Seems to me the TSA types could show at least as much fortitude.

lucid said...

to dust bunny--

you have the option of a scan, with radiation equal to 2 minutes of your flying time. or you can drive or not go where you were going.

She also has the option of demanding that the government do its damned job and protect the flying public, instead of playing CYA so it can justify a big, inefficient, intrusive agency sucking up lots of federal dollars so George Soros can recoup some of the money he lost because of Climategate.

Rick: I warn you, you are wasting your time on JR565. He/she is an employee of the TSA and will not acknowledge that a grandmother from Des Moines is any less suspicious than a 26 year old from Yemen just off the plane from Heathrow.

Airports can opt out of using TSA for security, and some airports have chosen or are considering this option. The trouble is that, now, an airport that contracts with a private security agency must comply with all TSA requirements. So the allure of a private security company is false. The private contractors would be paid by TSA.

Synova wrote:I also suspect that jr565 isn't volunteering to slide his/her hands through someone else's fat folds. Just other people.

Why would I? Im not a security guard. THough I would be if a terrorist got on board and tried to set off a bomb in his shoe. I'd rather leave that to more capable hands PRIOR to me getting on the plane, thanks. And while I may not be putting my hands on peoples folds, I will certainly submit to a patdown so long as it was professionally done, since I have nothing to hide. Only that wouldn't really be necessary as instead I'd walk though a blue box for thirty second raise my arms and then go get my bags.

jr565: Except it isn't that easy. After you walk through the blue box there remains a 50/50 chance that you get a further pat down. I hate to bring experience to this topic, but on at least three occasions in the last two weeks I have gone through the machines and then been told that I have to have my right front thigh or my left buttock patted down. Do not ask me why because it is never the same place and there is never a single bomb or evil devise on me. But there I go again, bringing up the way it actually works. But, hey, I might wake up tomorrow and join the Jihad, right?

you have the option of a scan, with radiation equal to 2 minutes of your flying time. or you can drive or not go where you were going.

being blown up is a major inconvenience to the people who have to clean you up off the landscape.

====================Your rationale is collapsing.

"Anything goes if it makes us just a tiny tad safer against those tiny few outliers from the vastly peaceful regigion of Peace we can't look preferentially at without violating basic Islamic rights".

Now confronts the "anal and vaginal cavity bomber".

The methodolgy is well understood from 30 years of drug mules doing it. Islamoids have already used it twice - an explosives-stuffed donkey against the Zionists that went off too soon and got criticism from animal rights groups, and the Islamoid carrying a "butt bomb" into a meeting attended by the Saudi MInister of Intelligence. (Minister survived).

And if somehow the country goes with Lucid's crowd and moves on to mandatory body cavity searches to "thwart the 5,000 really scary people who might kill a few of us!" - the enemy, not profiled and given relatively free access to hide in a newly arrived crowd of Fellow Believers...may just move on to subways, schools, public events.

Then what, Lucid?

THe way you do it is don't let any more Islamoids in. YOu watch the ones that are hear and if you can't control them you stick them in camps. And if someone points out it is "Unconstitutional" to do that so we have no choice but to accept anal and vaginal probes as a fact of life for getting in a public school everyday up to flying or attending a public meeting ----Well, then you Burn the Sacred Parchment. Write a better one that does not involve collective suffering of the entire population because we hold Jihadi rights higher than anything. I imagine a stint in camps will do wonders for causing Muslims here (as with the Japanese before) to rat out the bad guys, embrace patriotism and assimilation, and denounce Islamist extremism in the most strident forceful way, (finally)

Toss out Geneva too before I accept that 308 million Americans have to have body cavity searches before we "trammel the rights" of Islamoids.

Prairie Wind wrote:Standing in the blue box for thirty seconds is no guarantee that you won't get a patdown TOO.

Except in your dreamworld where Obama is brilliant and Gore is a good man and Kerry was thoughtful.

IF you read any of my posts about how much I hat the dems for being such hypocrites about Iraq, and how much i have no problem with watewrboarding terrorists and how much of a supporter of Israel I am (Palestinians already have a state called Jordan, there should be no second state) I doubt you'd say that. I was also for Bush doing his warrantless wiretaps, and the Patriot Act as were a whole lot of conservatives, who now suddenly are acting as if they never were calling for increased security measures due to the terrorism threat.The TSA was Bush my friends, not Kerry. THe water bottles was during Bush's tenure, not Kerrys. Its inconceivable that were he to have access to scanners, and there was a threat of someone trying to get a bomb on board through their underwear that he wouldn't think it was common sense to use a scanner that would prevent that. Do you miss Bush yet?

Cedarford wrote:"THe way you do it is don't let any more Islamoids in. YOu watch the ones that are hear and if you can't control them you stick them in camps. And if someone points out it is "Unconstitutional" to do that so we have no choice but to accept anal and vaginal probes as a fact of life for getting in a public school everyday up to flying or attending a public meeting ---"

Rigth because making someone walk through a scanner goes too damn far. But putting all muslims into camps and refusing entry of any muslim in this country, why that's totally reasonable. When you're rounding up all the muslims, do you think you might have to grope a few who wont come quietly?And it's hard for me to take seriously the idea that govt is overreaching and violating peoples rights when they make you submit to something as heinous as a ball swipe, but locking up an entire population through govt force, no govt overreach there.

I don't understand the sympathy for these guys that work for the TSA, and I really don't understand the whining from them.

If your boss comes to you and tells you your job now involves assaulting people, it's time to quit and find a new job.

I thought "I was just following orders" was established to not be an acceptable defense for atrocious behavior. And in that case, we were talking about folks drafted to serve in armed forces. People who would, quite possibly, be killed or imprisoned for not following orders.

In this case, we're talking about a completely voluntary occupational choice regarding probably a $10/hr job.

Its inconceivable that were he to have access to scanners, and there was a threat of someone trying to get a bomb on board through their underwear that he wouldn't think it was common sense to use a scanner that would prevent that. Do you miss Bush yet?

So your defense is that, if Bush had the technology back then, he would have used it? You really expect us to accept Obama doing this because you *imagine* Bush would have too?

[....]

And you dodged the pitch again. Will try again. Count is 0-2:

jr: Gasp! He'd have to do a pat-down (excuse me, he'd have to molest the guy and fondle his balls).

See, this is where your defense of TSA jumps the shark and weakens your credibility.

Before the underwear bomber, I tripped both the metal detector and the hand-scanner. The pat down I received did not include reaching down inside my underwear to grab my balls.

You're obviously intelligent enough to have known the difference. So I have to ask why you deliberately misrepresented the issue?

Gee---feel so sorry for people who don't get to feel up only slim good looking people.They're being paid to be jackasses and they have the gall to complain about having to work with the public, some of whom are fat. Next fat people won't be allowed to fly 'cause it disgusts the TSA.

"If the guy doesn't like his job, he can quit and get a real job that doesn't involve fondling my balls."

This is true.

Provided there are any other jobs to get.

And he doesn't have a mortgage or rent or kids to feed.

For the people who already work for the TSA, who may have worked airport security before 9-11 before it all switched over... this is changing the rules mid-stride. No one asked anyone if this was the job they wanted to have. And maybe a bunch of them will quit, and that will leave only those who have no other options at all or else who like it, like the power trip enough not to care how passengers treat them or what they have to do or *like* what they have to do.

And I'm hearing a very definite "the servants shouldn't complain they're forced to grovel" tone in some of the comments. It's similar to some attitudes about the police... that it's horrible if a *person* gets shot or hurt but the police are getting *paid*.

And then it's all... well don't have the job then, if you don't like it. And if someone has to do it, then they ought to just lay back and take it and deal with shit that *you*, whoever you are, wouldn't do yourself, not ever, because *you* want to fly and want to be "safe".

Aren't you special.

These are arguments that typically come embedded in the abdication of personal responsibility in the service of avoiding personal risk.

In the end it's simply a fact that an infringement on liberty is oppressive to everyone involved, no matter what the reason, and possibly "safety" as a reason to infringe liberty is the most oppressive.

At what point do we get to the argument that just so long as there is a good reason, that bad things are not bad anymore?

How do we get to the notion that because *I* want to be safe that everyone else must give up any notion of body-modesty or respect for privacy and dignity?

Maybe it's the people that think it's okay to make those requirements of other human beings who should be forced to drive, while free persons continue to fly.

Please explain why you think progressing to body cavity searches after the first Vagina Bomber takes down a plane is an absurd extension of your line of reasoning.

lucid: idiots who think the-scanners-don't-catch-anything

Well now you've just reverted to Libtardism. You call people who disagree with you "idiots". And in the same sentence where you idiotically ignore the FACT that these scanners do not pick up contraband hidden in body cavities.

See, this is where your defense of TSA jumps the shark and weakens your credibility.

Before the underwear bomber, I tripped both the metal detector and the hand-scanner. The pat down I received did not include reaching down inside my underwear to grab my balls.

You're obviously intelligent enough to have known the difference. So I have to ask why you deliberately misrepresented the issue?

In the case of kids, the TSA has a modified pat down that is far less invasive than that which they would give to adults and in those they are not fondling your balls. If they gave a kid the pat down you received or even less would that satisfy you that it wasn't sexual molestation?ANd you wouldn't have to get patted down at all (unless of course you set off alarms going through the metal detectorK) if you went through the screening process.ANd the scan detects both metals but also non metalllic threats (like powders liquids and gels, which makes it doubly efficient.Further, if you look at the scanner, the person doing the scan which again is the sihouette that shows very little actual detail, is not even in the same room, so doesn't match the actual person to the scan he's dong. In other words, he's not looking at a scan of ANn Althouse walking by as he sees her walking by. He sees an xray type image of generic person he can't identify walking by, followed by generic person of unidentified person walking by. But at any rate, you don't have to to do the patdown.

MikeDC wrote:If your boss comes to you and tells you your job now involves assaulting people, it's time to quit and find a new job.

I thought "I was just following orders" was established to not be an acceptable defense for atrocious behavior. And in that case, we were talking about folks drafted to serve in armed forces. People who would, quite possibly, be killed or imprisoned for not following orders.

So cops security guards and solders should all quit their jobs I guess. As should wrestlers and boxers.

Maguro wrote:jr565 - Why is the TSA doing patdowns on little kids AT ALL? It's patently fucking absurd. How about using a little common sense for a change, please?

Because little kid could have set off an xray machine. Because dad could use little kid as a courier for his smuggling whatever he is smuggling to get on a plane. You dont think kids could be used as props? Suppose you are profling a terrorist, or you're not sure but you supsect hes a terrorist and he has a kid with him. Is that kid off limits? Do you think terrorists who have no qualms about blowing up a plane filled with babies and moms would have any qualms about using a kid to help carry out their plot if it meant that it was easier to get a bomb on board? Hell, drug dealers use kids and teenagers to transport heroin on planes (which is another thing secuirty wants to be on the lookout for). Palestinans strap suicide belts on retarded kids. For someone so ruthless that they would blow up a plane don't be surprised at anything they might do. It does'nt even have to be their kids. Terrorists could find some unsuspecting famly kidnap half the famliy and hold them unless the kid does what they say and gets on a plane with the terrorist, or they use the mother or the grandmother or what have you. It's far fetched, but so are 19 guys hijacking planes with box cutters and using them as misssles to take out the pentago. If they know that the way to get a bomb on a plane is through a person that wont be scanned, that's where they'll go next.

Synova wrote:For the people who already work for the TSA, who may have worked airport security before 9-11 before it all switched over... this is changing the rules mid-stride. No one asked anyone if this was the job they wanted to have. And maybe a bunch of them will quit, and that will leave only those who have no other options at all or else who like it, like the power trip enough not to care how passengers treat them or what they have to do or *like* what they have to do.

Have fun flying then.

Back in 2001 when the airlines were running security the security guards were accused of being lazy and incompetent and just letting people wallk through without even checking them despite the obvoius threats they were missing. Now they are child molesters and are doing too much. People want them to secure their safety but yet will also fault them for voilating hteir personal space and being mean. They will always be the punching bag for someione. It's actually a pretty thankless job. If a security guard patted someone down some guy and pulled explosives out of the guys pants half the crowd would call him a hero and the other half would lament how he was a nazi child molester only following orders and touching peoples junk.

This is true. Provided there are any other jobs to get. And he doesn't have a mortgage or rent or kids to feed.

No.

If you're forced to choose between putting your family at risk and victimizing other people, you have a tough call to make. You can (a) quit or (b) victimize people and SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HOW LAME YOUR JOB IS.

Option (c), "bitch about how hard you have it while halfway up my ass with a rubber glove", is not an option I'm leaving on the table.

We all know the horror stories of the child molesters fondling the pubes of the kids and we've seen the videos where it shows the kids being molested.There's this one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN6pJ7nP1yA&feature=player_embedded(which redstate describes as "TSA Agent Molests three year old"

ONly, who's that sitting next to the kid? His mother? And she's saying "Good job" when the kid is complying with the TSA guy? And she's standing up to help the TSA agent, molest the kid? THe video I'm looking at doesn't compute with descrpitions of the ravenous child molestation going on.

Or there's this one where the kid actulaly has his shirt off. Not only are they molesting the kids, they're strip searching them too! Only the reason the kid was patted down was because he tripped the metal detector and the reason his shirt was off was becuase his father took it off, to make the pat down go quicker though no one had prompted him to do so. Why are these parents compling with molestations of their own kids? Or maybe, considering the parents are ok with it and aren't commenting on the obviousness of the molestation that it's not molestation.

Synova wrote:At what point do we get to the argument that just so long as there is a good reason, that bad things are not bad anymore?

War against terrorism? Water boarding high level al Qaeda and training in SERE, war in general, police arrests, jailing people, boxing, dentistry?surgery, I could make a case for all of them where if there is a good reason it's not bad anymore.

Part of the problem is that even if you opt to go through the 'naked image scanner' you might still have to go through the grope check. If something (anything) shows up on the scanner - like a knee brace, or a knee replacement, or a urine bag, or -- well, you get the picture.

Really, this is about dehumanization --give up a little more liberty, act a little more like cattle.

I see civil disobedience in the future. Major protests - maybe airport sit-ins.

One can only imagine how contaminated their gloves are with germs, such as e-coli, after running up and down pant legs alone.

We all know that not everyone keeps their bathroom clean, washes their clothes regularly or washes their hands after using the toilet. I've seen mothers change diapers in a public restroom and not wash their hands afterward.

How about the diner who wipes his fingers on his pants instead of a paper napkin? Or the kids who wipe their nose on a sleeve or their hand and then on their clothes?

"As the United States defends against the ever expanding threat of Muslim terror, right here on our home turf, success depends on throwing off the shackles of political correctness and adopting the methods of our ally Israel."

Honest question. Is the pat down really any different than the pat down you get when you go into a night club. I tend to avoid those places, as they are full of bridge and tunnel people, but when I have gone the searches tend to be pretty "thorough".

I'm definitely going to avoid the x-ray next time I fly, so I can see first hand what the big deal is. This really does seem like one big media hype.

And yes - I think the increased security won't have any impact. But the ban on liquids pisses me off a hell of a lot more. I've had to throw away some very expensive moisturizers because I forgot to take them out of my carry on.

One can only imagine how contaminated their gloves are with germs, such as e-coli, after running up and down pant legs alone.

So spend more money on rubber gloves. restuarants do it all the time. Make them change gloves whener they engage in a new pat down, or use one of those white light machines that disinfects 99% of germs. Don't see the problem here.But if you're worried about catching germs during flu season, maybe flying isn't your best bet, considering you're sharing recirculated air of all the passengers and flight staff for the duration of your trip. And sitting next to the same germ filled people on cramped seats. And dont even get me started on the bathrooms.

I could take this more seriously if TSA reps showed even the slightest respect to the people they're inspecting. Instead we routinely see them using their discretion to punish those whose attitudes they deem insufficiently obsequious.

only you could say the same thing about someone who shoulnd't have been cleared getting a weapon on board who wasn't properly checked. Just because the feds didn't do a good job addressing people who shouldn't do a good job checking people who are about to board airplanes. Fix both loopholes.I imagine the following dialog:Public: YOu let 19 hijackers get on board with box cutters who proceeded to use planes as missiles. Why dindn't you check to make sure they dindn't bring stuff on board?"TSA: Well we didn't want to check their junkPublic: Is it inconceivable that a terrorist might hide something in their junk region beause they know you have no protocol to check there? Going forward how are you going to ensure that people are not STILL putting stuff in their junkTSA: If they have stuff in their junk we can do nothing except hope that passeners will tackle the 19 hijackers before they do any lasting damage. As far as we're concerned, the fact that they already got into the airport means that we can't do anything and they've already won.Public: Did you check their bags?TSA: Well of course. That would be smart, because they could hide things in their bags.Public: Well if you got something in your bag in the airport, wouldnt that similarly mean you couldn't do anything? Yet I see you still have a protocol to check there.TSA: Yes, but we can't check peoples junk. It wouldn't be right.Public: Could you check a terrorists junk, would that be right?TSA: Well yes, because they're terrorists.Public; But what if you're not sure, and have to make a decision that will impact whether an entire plane goes down. Aren't you going to sometimes have to check peoples junk just to allay your fears that they are not terrorists? Wont that be part of profilingTSA: I guess so.Public: So if you check their junk and they're not terrorists, then havent' you just done that which you said should never be done, and why couldn't we similarly say you molested people without due cause? Wouldn't it then be more likely that you would refuse to check the junk of peoples junk who should be checked because you're afraid of the legal ramifications if you get it wrong?TSA: Free Snowcone! Free snow cone at the end of the game, if you play they're gonna give you a free snowcone, even if you play half game you get a... you don't get a half snow cone...you get a whole snow cone for half the game... people that play whole game get a whole snow cone and the people that play half game get a whole snow cone. So it's always whole snow cone. So, I'd rather play half game. Still get the whole snow cone.Public; So in other words, there's nothing you got that would deal with anything that involved getting weapons on an airline. We should simply let passengers act as security guards. Are we going to pay them for this service?TSA: GRAPE! I'm gonna get grape, or cherry. They're both... favorites, so either one is good, but if they have both, I'll get grape, because grape is a little more favorite. But if they don't have grape it's like alright its fine, cause cherry's favorite anyway. It's like another favorite, but not as much. Not as much favorite. But they're both good. They're both good.

We want the security at airports to be Brian Regan thinking about snowcones while the game is going on.How about the people that are actuallly at the security gates. Free snow cones!If we don't care, then why even have security at gates? If they're there then why not have them check the actual people who are about to board airplanes or have protocols in place to deal with someone who might sneak something on board in a place that would be embarrasing to check.

Wow jr565, your argument really is that we either have to something extremely invasive or nothing at all? Seriously?

And since you believe the former, why hold short? Why not make every woman wearing a tampon, remove it? Why not have full body cavity searches? Hell, why not give all passengers laxatives and put them in twenty-four hour quarantine?